We clearly will not agree on many things Wesley, but thank you for responding.

My intent is to make sure that I am representing you correctly. And that is why I am asking you questions.

The fact you said:

Quote

I have no need to believe that anything evidences CSI by Dembski's definition.

Evidences you do not represent and possibly do not understand CSI. When I a designer like myself creates an ID artifact there can be no doubt that in many cases there is CSI. It is the blueprint artifact methaphor.

That is why I asked about DNA genetic engineering. I corresponded with Dembski (who by the way was Shallit's student as evidenced in the Acknowledgements of Design Inference) last week to quadruple check that my interpretation was correct. I was certain I was right, and I was.

Thus, as I have suspected, your paper incorrectly represents Dembski's work. If your complaint is one of clarity, I will pass that on and we'll make the adjustments.

Your SAI concept has merit.

For the record not all of my posts on the matter at ARN are correct technically, and I have to fix a few things. I would not be surprised to see the ID leadership or rank and file at some point write a refutaiton of your's and Shallit's paper.

I know that we are on both sides of an emotionally charged issue, and I am grateful you have offered to dialogue with me, even if the communications are mostly dysfunctional, we at least have some dialogue.